High Court · 2022

Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.H. Vashishtha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, Sr. Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Raghvendra Swaroop Bhatnagar (R.S. Bhatnagar), seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with R.C. No.RC1202018A0002 dated 31.1.2018 under Section 120-B, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, P.S. C.B.I. A.C.B. Ghaziabad. The FIR of the present case was lodged on 31.1.2018 against unknown officials of Punjab National Bank, Nehru Nagar Branch Ghaziabad, Sanjeev Dixit, Smt. Sheetal Sharma and other unknown private persons alleging that Sanjeev Dixit is a businessman involved in manufacturing and trading of bathroom fittings who entered into a criminal conspiracy with unknown officials of the Bank and other unknown private persons with an object to cheat the Bank by fraudulently and dishonestly getting the loan of Rs.3.50 crore sanctioned and disbursed in his favour on the basis of forged and bogus documents which caused wrongful loss to the Bank and wrongful gain to him. While applying for loan, he deposited collateral security of the loan/C.C. facility with the Bank, false documents such as Income Tax Returns, VAT Returns, Audited Balance Sheet, Credit Worthiness Certificate of CA and Bank statement of account. The ownership of the property was shown in the name of Sanjeev Dixit whereas it was held by one late Rajinder Kumar Manchanda who never sold it to Sanjeev Dixit. The forged document was presented in the Bank as genuine by Sanjeev Dixit. The unknown officials of the Bank without adhering to the procedure and guidelines of the Bank, sanctioned and disbursed loan of Rs.3.50 crore in the form of C.C. Limit in favour of Sanjeev Dixit, the proprietor of M/S Golden Tap Industries by circumventing the existing guidelines and rules of the Bank. The documents were not verified for KYC purposes and even the CIBIL report was not generated. The amount was credited in the account of M/S Golden Tap Industries which was owned by Sanjeev Dixit along with unknown persons of the Bank. The entire episode happened in May, 2011. Subsequently in June, 2011, Smt. Sheetal Sharma, W/o Sanjeev Dixit entered into a conspiracy with unknown officials of the Bank and unknown private persons and got two crores sanctioned and disbursed in her favour on the basis of forged and bogus documents. The ownership title deed of the property of Ghaziabad was presented in the Bank which was showing it to be in the name of Sanjeev Dixit as the person for the loan/C.C. facility. The other documents were also forged documents. The officials of the Bank in the same manner sanctioned and disbursed Rs.2 crores in the form of C.C. Limit in favour of Smt. Sheetal Sharma, the proprietor of M/S Ganesh Industries. The FIR was thus lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The then Chief Manager and the Manager of the Bank visited the site and verified the documents after which Cash Credit Limit facility of Rs.2.5 crores was sanctioned. The applicant was working as Deputy Manager/Processing Officer in Nehru Nagar Branch of Punjab National Bank from February, 2008 to June, 2011. Subsequently he was transferred to Modi Nagar Branch on 2.7.2011. While placing para no.12 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application and annexure no.4 to the affidavit, it is argued that the two members team comprising of R.S. Chauhan, Chief Manager and Manoj Kumar, Manager of the Bank visited the site on 23.5.2011 and gave their report after verifying the same which was with regards to the property mortgaged by Sanjeev Dixit. In so far as the property mortgaged by Smt. Sheetal Sharma is concerned, the same persons visited the site on 22.6.2011 and gave their satisfactory report. It is argued that the default in payment of the said loan by the two persons happened and as such proceedings under the SURFAESI Act took place and the property was e-auctioned on 2.9.2013, the sale certificate was issued and the possession was handed over to the auction purchaser on 16.9.2013. It is argued that charge sheet in the present matter has been submitted against R.S. Chauhan, the applicant and Manoj Kumar. There are no chances of the applicant tempering with evidence or not cooperating with the investigation. It is argued that the allegation against the applicant is that he along with other co- accused persons processed the loan and documents and without proper verification and due diligence, sanctioned the loan. It is argued that the applicant has been posted as Deputy Manager/Processing Officer, collects the documents and sends it for processing and has no role in the sanction and disbursement of the money. There is no allegation whatsoever that the applicant is beneficiary of the alleged fraud. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 39 of the affidavit. The applicant is aged about 63 years and is suffering with various age related diseases, para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application has been placed before the Court. The applicant is in jail since 7.5.2022. Per contra learned counsel for the C.B.I has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant was the person who was Processing Officer and had processed the documents on the basis of which the loan was sanctioned by the other co-accused persons. The forged documents were submitted for both the loans which were processed at the Branch level by a team of the applicant after which loan was sanctioned. It is argued that as such active participation of the applicant is there in the present matter. The applicant did not properly verify the documents and without due diligence loan was sanctioned to the concerned persons. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records it is evident that the applicant was the Deputy Manager/Processing Officer in Punjab National Bank, Nehru Nagar Branch, Ghaziabad. The applicant was not the sanctioning authority of the loan. The site of the property given for collateral purposes was visited by two other co-accused persons who gave their satisfactory report. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Let the applicant-Raghvendra Swaroop Bhatnagar (R.S. Bhatnagar), be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. The bail application is allowed. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 21.11.2022 Gaurav KULSHRESTHA Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad